Migraine-Associated Common Genetic Variants Confer Greater Risk of Posterior vs. Anterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke☆.

OBJECTIVE: To examine potential genetic relationships between migraine and the two distinct phenotypes posterior circulation ischemic stroke (PCiS) and anterior circulation ischemic stroke (ACiS), we generated migraine polygenic risk scores (PRSs) and compared these between PCiS and ACiS, and separately vs. non-stroke control subjects. METHODS: Acute ischemic stroke cases were classified as PCiS or ACiS based on lesion location on diffusion-weighted MRI. Exclusion criteria were lesions in both vascular territories or uncertain territory; supratentorial PCiS with ipsilateral fetal posterior cerebral artery; and cases with atrial fibrillation. We generated migraine PRS for three migraine phenotypes (any migraine; migraine without aura; migraine with aura) using publicly available GWAS data and compared mean PRSs separately for PCiS and ACiS vs. non-stroke control subjects, and between each stroke phenotype. RESULTS: Our primary analyses included 464 PCiS and 1079 ACiS patients with genetic European ancestry. Compared to non-stroke control subjects (n=15396), PRSs of any migraine were associated with increased risk of PCiS (p=0.01-0.03) and decreased risk of ACiS (p=0.010-0.039). Migraine without aura PRSs were significantly associated with PCiS (p=0.008-0.028), but not with ACiS. When comparing PCiS vs. ACiS directly, migraine PRSs were higher in PCiS vs. ACiS for any migraine (p=0.001-0.010) and migraine without aura (p=0.032-0.048). Migraine with aura PRS did not show a differential association in our analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a stronger genetic overlap between unspecified migraine and migraine without aura with PCiS compared to ACiS. Possible shared mechanisms include dysregulation of cerebral vessel endothelial function.

Detailed phenotyping of posterior vs. anterior circulation ischemic stroke: a multi-center MRI study.

OBJECTIVE: Posterior circulation ischemic stroke (PCiS) constitutes 20-30% of ischemic stroke cases. Detailed information about differences between PCiS and anterior circulation ischemic stroke (ACiS) remains scarce. Such information might guide clinical decision making and prevention strategies. We studied risk factors and ischemic stroke subtypes in PCiS vs. ACiS and lesion location on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in PCiS. METHODS: Out of 3,301 MRIs from 12 sites in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Stroke Genetics Network (SiGN), we included 2,381 cases with acute DWI lesions. The definition of ACiS or PCiS was based on lesion location. We compared the groups using Chi-squared and logistic regression. RESULTS: PCiS occurred in 718 (30%) patients and ACiS in 1663 (70%). Diabetes and male sex were more common in PCiS vs. ACiS (diabetes 27% vs. 23%, p < 0.05; male sex 68% vs. 58%, p < 0.001). Both were independently associated with PCiS (diabetes, OR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.04-1.61; male sex, OR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.21-1.78). ACiS more commonly had large artery atherosclerosis (25% vs. 20%, p < 0.01) and cardioembolic mechanisms (17% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) compared to PCiS. Small artery occlusion was more common in PCiS vs. ACiS (20% vs. 14%, p < 0.001). Small artery occlusion accounted for 47% of solitary brainstem infarctions. CONCLUSION: Ischemic stroke subtypes differ between the two phenotypes. Diabetes and male sex have a stronger association with PCiS than ACiS. Definitive MRI-based PCiS diagnosis aids etiological investigation and contributes additional insights into specific risk factors and mechanisms of injury in PCiS.

Improper adjustment for baseline in genetic association studies of change in phenotype.

OBJECTIVE: In studies of associations between genetic factors and outcomes where change in phenotype is of interest, proper modeling of the data, particularly the treatment of baseline trait values, is required to draw valid conclusions. METHODS: The authors compared models of blood pressure response to a cold pressor test with and without inclusion of baseline blood pressure as a regressor and evaluate the resultant biases. RESULTS: Adjustment for baseline presents a potential source of bias for assessment of genotype-phenotype associations. This bias was observed to occur both under the absence of a true effect, as well when a relation between genotype and change in phenotype was simulated. In simulations that incorporated measurement error, estimates were as great as two fold the true parameter values when unmeasured confounding was a factor. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for baseline introduces bias in genetic association studies when change in phenotype is the outcome of interest. Model misspecification bias may impact inference and provide one possible source of non-replication of findings in the literature.

Accounting for relatedness in family based genetic association studies.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the differences in point estimates, power and type 1 error rates when accounting for and ignoring family structure in genetic tests of association. METHODS: We compare by simulation the performance of analytic models using variance components to account for family structure and regression models that ignore relatedness for a range of possible family based study designs (i.e., sib pairs vs. large sibships vs. nuclear families vs. extended families). RESULTS: Our analyses indicate that effect size estimates and power are not significantly affected by ignoring family structure. Type 1 error rates increase when family structure is ignored, as density of family structures increases, and as trait heritability increases. For discrete traits with moderate levels of heritability and across many common sampling designs, type 1 error rates rise from a nominal 0.05 to 0.11. CONCLUSION: Ignoring family structure may be useful in screening although it comes at a cost of a increased type 1 error rate, the magnitude of which depends on trait heritability and pedigree configuration.